WHY BENGHAZI ATTACK IS SIGNIFICANT

Why is the 9/11 terrorist attack on the US consulate at Benghazi significant, beyond the obvious, which is that four American diplomats were murdered? The answer is that the Administration and the State Department deceived the American people in order to cover up that it was a terrorist attack by elements of Al Quaeda and Ansar al-Sharia. Instead, they blamed a spontaneous protest over anti-Islamic video. Until the last few days, the liberal-biased “mainstream” media has aided and abetted this deception by its failure to pursue the story. In my opinion, the overriding purpose was to avoid damaging President Obama’s re-election campaign, which a terrorist attack on the eve of the election would likely do.

The salient points areas follows:

1. The attack on 9/11 should not have surprised any intelligent person, since 9/11 is the anniversary of you know what. Yet, precautions had not been taken. The State Department had ignored the diplomats’ repeated requests for additional security. Note that the British had had the foresight to recall many of its diplomats.

2. Military reinforcements were not deployed, even though evidence now available clearly shows that a prompt deployment would likely have saved two of the slain diplomats. There were two separate attacks hours apart, and the reinforcements could have arrived before the second one. Instead, they were specifically ordered to “stand down.” It is not yet clear who gave that order, but I find it hard to believe that Secretary Clinton was not at least aware of it during or after the fact. That would constitute gross mismanagement of her department. It also strains credulity that President Obama was not apprised of the terrorist connection soon afterwards, as he receives a CIA briefing daily.

3. In the aftermath, the administration and the State Department blamed an anti-Islamic video.

4. Susan Rice, former Ambassador to the UN, was designated to be the spokesperson for this cover-up. She made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows and repeated the above mantra. The talking points memo she used had been heavily modified to cast the alphabet agencies in the best light. Reportedly, it went through 12 revisions. Any references to Al-Quaeda, Ansar al-Sharia and terrorists were expunged. It is not yet clear whether this was at the direction of the White House or State Department, but the likelihood is both had a hand. Jay Carney insists that the White House only made a “stylistic” change (which places the blame squarely on Clinton). If you believe Carney, I have a bridge I can sell you.

5. President Obama repeated this absurd video claim duriing the third Presidential debate. Incredibly, Romney did not challenge him sufficiently. Had he done so, he might have won the election, but that is speculation and water under the bridge.

6. This week three whistle blowers came forward and testified before Congress. It is their testimony, including the existence of several emails back and forth among the various alphabet agencies, that has provided most of the verification of the deception and cover-up. When and if these emails come to light, they may prove as explosive as the oval office tapes did during the Watergate investigation.

7. Pat Smith, Sean Smith’s mother, has disclosed in various interviews that President Obama, Secretary Clinton and others lied to her face, telling her that the attacks were caused by a spontaneous response to the aforementioned video and were not the work of terrorists. This is a grieving mother who simply wants the truth about how and why her son died.

8. At this point, eight months later, the perpetrators have not been caught.

9. The “mainstream” media has now roused itself. Although Fox News has been following the story since September, ironically, it was an ABC reporter whose story on the talking points memo finally roused the media. The White House press corps has been grilling Carney the past few days on the matter. He has been engaging in his usual double-talk and obfuscation, but the information will come out eventually. It always does.

CONCLUSION AND PREDICTION

No one wants to be lied to. Yes, politicians do it all the time, Bush 43 about WMD, Clinton about Monica Lewinsky, John Edwards and Mark Sanford about extramarital affairs, Charles Rangel about taxes. The list is endless. It seems to be a prerequisite for holding public office. But, the Benghazi attack was and is a serious matter. Four Americans died. They were not soldiers; they were diplomats. They were supposed to be protected, and they were not. And then, to exacerbate the situation the Administration and the State Department lied to cover it up. Remember, the cover up is always worse than the crime. Richard Nixon was forced to resign over Watergate, which was a mere break-in. Nobody died, and Nixon would have won re-election handily anyway. In this case, whether you believe President Obama or Secretary Clinton were involved in the incident directly, indirectly or not all is beside the point. It is clear to all but blind, die-hard supporters that they were involved in the cover-up. The motive was clear: do nothing to damage Obama’s record on terrorism before the election. (Remember the slogan “GM is alive, Bin Laden is dead and al Quaeda is on the run?”). No objective, logical person could think otherwise.

Now, a new twist is to what extent, if any, this will affect Clinton’s Presidential campaign in 2016. Hard to say. As Secretary of State, she definitely has some culpability, directly or indirectly. When you’re in charge, the “buck” stops with you. Also, Obama may be forced to throw her under the bus at some point to deflect blame from himself. So far, throughout her career she has been made of teflon. My prediction is that if the media keeps doing its job this issue will influence the 2014 mid-term elections, but by 2016 the public will be focused on other matters, and the “mainstream” press will leap to her support.